Post navigation

Recognition at last

All too often people fail to realise the deep intellect and profound sentiments expressed in this site. They treat my thoughts as a source of amusement and occasionally even, derision. This can be extremely hurtful, but I don’t complain.

It was with profound humility then when I discovered that at last my efforts are being treated with their due respect and deference.

There is a site out there – Business-Pro – which produces articles on such esoteric subjects as Business Intelligence, Risk Management and Leadership. I was delighted to discover that they have provided a link to one of my articles.

In case any of you miss the relevant link, it is in the bottom left corner.

Seriously though Grandad it really is time that scientists and lobbyists using spurious data for social engineering purposes need to be challenged.

We’ve had the IPCC crowd duly skewered because of sloppy research and an arrogant attitude towards serious problems. Enough is enough with these people. I think there is a case for not allowing surveys to be published unless they pass challenging criteria for relevance to an entire population.

Time for a panel through which all such nonsense should be channelled and challenged before publication.

Captain – I could not agree more. Anyone who knows anything about research, blind trials or statistics could drive a fucking navy through holes in most results, yet these results are used daily as a basis for legislation and as an excuse for social engineering.

There was a study that was done recently that found that people who spoke Irish did better in life, earned higher salaries and had higher status. This was on the basis of an analysis of Census data. That was a load of bollox! I could give you any number of reasons why that ‘research’ is so flawed as to be laughable, but I can guarantee it is being used to press the cause of the Irish language.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you presented me with just about any hypothesis, I could prove it is true/false by the use of ‘research’ and statistics?

I’d say there is a very good case for surveys below a certain level and then being extrapolated for an entire population being banned as a set of ethical rules for researchers involved in public policy debate.

The most horrific example I ever came across was a survey carried out by a prohibitionist group on what was one of the worst sink estates in Britain- somewhere down near Bristol.

They ‘discovered’ that in many of the houses there were adults who drank to excess- hardly surprising given the conditions and unemployment, drugs etc in that place.

Then they extrapolated their findings as representative f the whole of Britain and released a statement to the usual Nanny papers (Daily Mail, Sun etc) with a headline that read ‘Three in Five British Children Being Brought Up By Alcoholics’.

Cue outrage. As it happened they overegged it and people started demanding their data- when it was revealed what they had done their funding was pulled as the funding authorities realised they were dealing with religious nutters\professional liars.

Surveys are not science. In many cases they aren’t even qualified as research.

Mick – Just for you, I did a quick survey of one thousand people. They were asked whether a) they would trust the government, b) have a date with Twink or c) research my arse. I’m sorry to inform you that 98% selected ‘c’. The other 2% were declared insane.

Ian – See above for your evidence.

Captain – I read about that survey somewhere. It’s like the data that shows the steep rate of decline in heart attacks after the smoking ban, where they neglect to mention that there was a same rate of decline before the ban.

Congradualationscongratualtionscongrda Good an ya’! Glad you were finally recognize for your tremendous insight, compassion, thought processes, research abilities, consideration of subject matter and all them other complimentary terms and phrases that won’t come to my obviously shallow mind that pales in comparison to yours etc, etc, etc.